The Arab uprising must be seen as an integral part of a world in transformation. The technological and informational revolutions that have spurred (and continue to spur) globalization and interconnectedness between cultures make it impossible for tyrants to rule for the entirety of their lifetimes while mercilessly subjugating their peoples to lives of servitude with no prospect of ever tasting the true meaning of freedom.
There are many who suggest, including the notable scholar George Friedman that the Arab spring is some kind of mass delusion that amounts to, "just demonstration accompanied by slaughter and extraordinarily vacuous observers." When university graduate turned street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in front of a government building in Sid Bouzid, Tunisia he unleashed a torrent of long-repressed political expression in the Middle East. Through his brave self-immolation, he sent a clear message to his generation: die with dignity rather than continue to live and suffer the daily indignities that amount to an unfulfilled life. It is that message that empowered Egyptians, Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians and others to protest and die in the hope that their sacrifices would bring an end to their daily injustices.
To be sure, the ethos of protest began growing in the Arab world several years ago. In their 2007 National Interest article entitled, "Arab Spring Fever," Nathan J. Brown and Amr Hamzawy aptly observed that the unusual protests in the streets of the Middle East from 2005-2007 only indicated that, "dreams of democratic openings, competitive elections, the rule of law and wider political freedoms have captured the imagination of clear majorities in the Arab world."
This new generation of Arab youth is not the same youth of a generation ago as they have been exposed to the world at large, have risen against oppression, deprivation and stagnation, and no longer wish to live in submission to corrupt leaders and governments. To assume that the Arab youth will indefinitely remain subjugated to the whims of despots is nothing short of being oblivious to the advent of a new era of Arab countries in the midst of a global transformation that cannot (and will not) exclude the Arab youth from yearning for a meaningful life. No Arab government, however oppressive, will ever be in a position to completely shut down their youth's access to the outside world and stifle their hunger for freedom.
The 2011 uprisings were neither instigated by outside powers or criminal gangs (as some Arab leaders have alluded) nor did the revolutionaries need to blame outside entities for their problems. The Arab youth refused to ask for foreign intervention unless faced with regimes willing to commit massacres to maintain power such as Gaddafi's Libya or presently, Assad's Syria nor did this youth blame Israel or the United States for their country's failures. Rather their attention was turned to the failure of their own leaders, their own dictatorial governments.
The regimes of Mubarak, Assad, Gaddafi, and Saleh have typically attempted to portray the uprising as a foreign-instigated conspiracy. This has been done in vain, as the revolting youth refuse to be distracted by the old empty slogans and contrived excuses of those in power that suggest that chaos will dominate in their absence should they be ousted from power. Gone are the days when Arab leaders could ride the wave of public discontent by blaming Israel, the United States, or former colonial powers for their trying existence.
The uprisings of past and present have been organized via online social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, the resulting messages being televised, texted, and tweeted. Al-Jazeera Arabic channel, which gained popularity and credibility among the Arab populace throughout the previous decade, has marginalized state media coverage through its accessibility and perceived impartiality and delivered messages to individuals less savvy to the machinations of social media tools. Obviously, these networking and media technology tools did not make political revolutions happen. Rather, they have been the frontline of the revolutions, precluding the need for ideological leadership to direct the revolutions. Attempts by the regimes to cut off their populations from the rest of the world by shutting down telephone and internet services proved counterproductive as it only made blatant the fact that rulers were attempting to cover up their people's outrage and widely confirmed the regime's lack of responsibility towards its own people.
New media has enabled revolutions to spread domestically, as well as beyond national borders. Arab regimes have demonstrated an outstanding success to offset Iran's attempt to export its Islamic revolution but failed miserably to oppress the Arab Spring because, as F. Gregory Gause has argued, this, "very leaderless quality of the popular mobilization is what made them sources of inspiration." But it has also rendered the mobilization impervious to the security apparatus. That is why the protest that started over rampant unemployment and corruption in Tunisia, and the ousting of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, has led to protests throughout the Arab world -- from Algeria to Yemen -- with a united refrain to send their respective leaders to join Ben Ali in his forced exile to Saudi Arabia. The subsequent revolt which has gripped Egypt has echoed throughout the Middle East from Libya to Syria to Bahrain.
Contrary to what some commentators have said, the Arab uprisings are not a divorced phenomenon from the protests that have taken over many parts of the Western world due to the continuing economic crisis. Despite the unique characteristics of each country's situation, the common theme of the protests in the Arab world (as well as in the West) has been largely shaped by the continuing world economic crisis, expanding economic inequality and rising social injustices. Massive budget cuts and raised taxes have led to violent protests in Britain, Spain, Italy, Greece, and elsewhere in Europe.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement sees the root cause of the social and economic inequality in corporate greed with ties to government officials and therefore targets its ire at financial institutions whose power and influence has caused the current crisis. Arabs, Europeans, Israelis, and Americans have all pointed their fingers at those they believe to be responsible for their problems.
European and American protests require a change in policies, not government. For the protestors, democracy and entrepreneurship have been exploited at the expense of the average person and the system simply is not working well. That is why the protesters are seeking reforms and even more drastic measures, including a complete overhaul of the current system. Conversely, the Arab youth, who similarly claim that they are representing the "99 percent", saw the root cause of their socioeconomic misery, lack of freedom and injustices to be the authoritarian governments that created and sustained the conditions for their misery. They have not experienced freedom and democracy and see no prospect of meaningful change from the current regimes and that is why they are seeking an "overthrow" of the system.
Regardless of how youth uprisings fluctuate in intensity, they are not a passing phenomenon. They will last for many years and will wind down only when new or current Arab regimes commit to, and deliver on, promises for constructive socio-economic and political reforms, regardless of how long that might take. The Arab states which have not as yet experienced a popular protest should take heed of what is bound to happen unless they begin now to act in earnest to address their public's deep and unsettling grievances.
Follow Alon Ben-Meir on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlonBenMeir
Rebecca Novick: Protest Or Sacrifice? China's Anti-Imperialist Propaganda Backfires In Tibet
Brian Dooley: U.S. Giving Undue Deference to Bassiouni Commission Report
Jeff DeGraff: I'm Mad as Hell and I'm Not Going to Take It Anymore
Qais Ghanem, MD: Yemen's Saleh Has Signed at Last. Now What?
Capitalism–Socialism-Communism-Theocracy.
Everyone has pro and cons!
All failed the daily real life test.
The free world people have straggled for over 100 years for 8 working hours,illness insurance, vacation,retirement,employed.
They are losing social rights.
People on the developing world lucky to get jobs don’t get western social benefits.
The globalization has a huge potential to create worldwide wealth and social justness.
However it is used mainly to increase the profit of few .
The 99% are working harder and getting less.
*Governments are losing power to global conglomerates.
Labor unions lost their capability to protect people rights in the fast changing society.
Many families are in disorder and children are a high burden.
*Politicians that don’t understand meddle class needs are doomed to disappear.
In the democratic system one leader is powerless.
The majority of politicians taking part in the democratic system should understand the needs and cooperate for a solution.
Politicians from the left or right parties should remember, understand ,avoid historic events repetition.
Systems that ignored the mass needs failed,results being large bloodshed:
Politicians, economy leaders and philosophers should learn and implement gradual changes in the current systems.
*French revolution ended up with mass executions,Napoleon wars.
* Bolshevik revolution ended up with mass killings,brutal operation,the cold war.
* One of the results of the 1929 resection was rise of Nazism, Fascism and WW2.
*The revolution against Shah lead to Islamist Iran standing against democracy,human rights.
--
Open end-no solutions-what other people have in mind?
21 century people need new philosophy to follow!
Capitalism–Socialism-Communism-Theocracy-
dont have answers for 21 century people's needs.
I have question-not replies.
If some people will think to find solutions and will act to implement them, live will be better and just for many.
--Social dissonance!
Protesting is welcomed however a new philosophy and adoptioned by politicians is needed..
The technological revolution creates social dissonance.
Naming a few:High speed global communication,open markets,laws promoting competition, knows haw sharing and transfer, international banking,global investments-assets-cultural influence.
*The modern technology has changed how business and prosperity are made worldwide.
Being a successful individual created disorder in the family institution.
*Only few people benefit from the technological revolution.
They get richer only because they are in the junctions of decision making without contributing to create real prosperity.
(Banks and corporation managers,high level officials, Not the start up entrepreneurs)
All the others are losing.
*The technological revolution created means individuals around the globe can easily communicate directly, sharing knowledge, ideas and actions.
They are bypassing governments and powerful interested party's shaping peoples' minds and stirring information.
*What is considered a successful individual life routine is:
Bye more-work more-increase company revenues quarterly-imitate movie stars, fashion models, sport icons-(buying dreams).
All the above don't create happy people.
-Life has changed and societies have to learn how to use the technical means for the benefits of all people.
Under the communist system, some citizens (the non-producing greedy elite family connected government bureaucrats) are "MORE EQUAL" than other citizens (the lower class citizens that make the things that the elite government bureaucrats (and the producers) consume!
US citizens would then have traded businessmen, industrialists and Wall Street financial wizards who now control the conditions and terms of their employment (or servitude) for an elite class of family connected (almost royal) government bureaucratic employees who will be controlling our employment (or our conditions of servitude), and they would then dole out our share of the necessities of life to each of us according to our needs, not according to the amount that we produced!
Does anyone believe that the USA should adopt the socialist/communist form of big government like Russia where everybody has (had) a job working for the government, the government owns everything, and the government collects everything that the people produce and then some politically appointed family connected government elite bureaucrat doles out the food, shelter, and clothing required to sustain our lives according to his/her whim or desire?
Most of the individuals in any future communist USA would want to work at something other than producing the basic food, shelter, clothing and other products required to sustain life.
The producers would strive to become members the a non-producing greedy government elite bureaucrat society, demanding and wanting the disgruntled producers to produce more and more so that privileged individuals of the government elite bureaucratic society class can keep themselves busy as musicians, poets, actors, social workers, philosophers, historians, politicians, bureaucrats, administrators, police, firemen, military, school teachers, judges and other endeavors that do not create any of the food, shelter and clothing necessary for maintaining the lives of the population.
Meanwhile you have people trying to correlate the Arab Spring protests and OWS. Similarites don;t make a correlation if the differences are too great.
In the M.East you had murderous, torturous regimes. In the USA you have SOME people who have to scrimp and save to keep their houses, pay for their educations... yet for the most part they have a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. But instead of using the democratic system to achieve the reform they want, OWS is trying to use force. The situation doesn't warrant force; the oppression is NOT the same as that of the M./East regimes.
observe KIng and Gandhi,
however you are wrong
our country tolerates 40%
lack of medical coverage for children,
the only industrialized nation,
you may not mind lack of prenatal care or
high infant mortality, but I do.
where have you been since 9/11?
further the disparity is more about
misuse of oil money than USA,
There are plenty of fish to fry in Asia
just look at Iran.
In Egypt, yes they are moving towards a new future that is not written yet but the fact that the military will be the king maker and the money, power and families that own the country are still in place means what we again have is a good show and at the base level no harm to the real powers.
This, if set in American politics is the same!
to quote Haile Selasse;
"remember the Armenians"
different and crazy unfair.
Occupy Wall Street appears to me to be a bunch of people who don't know what they want. They have gathered together because they are angry. They believe, maybe rightfully, that they're getting the short end of the stick. Their answer, however, appears to be anarchy.
The average Arab had no vote in his country. OWS people have a vote, they just don't believe it counts (from what I have garnered). The average Arab took his life in his hands, the OWS, not so much.
any more than the Arab youth?
Take a little quiz;
-who made month when the '08 market crashed?
-how many billionaires did '08 create?
-do children deserve health care?
-where do you stand on the uptick rule?
. . Hum! . . I'll bet you a Snow Cone you are WRONG . .
But what makes anybody think that whoever emerges as the leader of the rebels in these countries will be better to the common people and will treat the common people any better than the previous rulers?
The new leaders will probably create another new Elite Government Bureaucracy that will only hire the new leader's family, political supporters and friends, and then take most of the government oil and tax revenues to pay for new bloated salaries for the new leader's family and friends.
At least in the USA you have the opportunity to work hard and join the rich, as compared to Egypt Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and/or Libya where you have to be politically and/or family connected and/or bribe some government official to get government license to become a businessman!
Who should we really be comparing ourselves to?
going to be OK, as for the
flyover states, jim crow texas
and environementally destroyed
eastern Europe...
The bell tolled over a land now rife with corruption.
It was the signal that Greed had run its course and required recourse.
It was the sign that the beacon - for those who viewed liberty
as the last vestige of "hope" - was no longer.
So they (and we) revolt.
Call it oppression, call it austerity, call it a bail out,
but when liberty is no longer a attainable - revolt is.